http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2-accelerators-find-particles-that-may-break-known-laws-of-physics1/
It has a 3.9sigma signal, too early in the game, but who knows if this is going to be the stuff of new physics!
There are no laws, just recurrent patterns that haven't been contradicted by experiment yet ;-)) You have seen one short lived resonance, you have seen them all. Explain the Fine Structure Constant (as Feynman suggested) and then we might know something.
You know that the Big Bang and gravitational waves violate mass-energy conservation, right? Just saying that the Bianchi Identities take care of things, is a cop out.
Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2015, 01:49:53 PM
There are no laws, just recurrent patterns that haven't been contradicted by experiment yet ;-))
Nice tautology
QuoteYou have seen one short lived resonance, you have seen them all.
You still need to explain why there are 3 families of quarks, and 3 families of lepton, and why these are 3, and not any other number.
QuoteExplain the Fine Structure Constant (as Feynman suggested) and then we might know something.
First, it isn't a constant as it is energy dependent. Second, it's the parameter that particularly couples matter to the electromagnetic field. Matter is also coupled to the other fields, but with different coupling constant.
Quote
You know that the Big Bang and gravitational waves violate mass-energy conservation, right? Just saying that the Bianchi Identities take care of things, is a cop out.
A battle semantics... It's all in the definition.
Correct math, is a tautology. Contingent math, is physical science. Contradictory math, is economics ;-)
I don't believe you or anyone else has solved the problem of logical induction (mathematical induction on a monotonically and uniformly increasing number series ... doesn't count). The first black swan to come along, blows the whole group delusion.
Yes, there are lots of hard to explain things. But don't worry, I am working on it ;-)
Well then, on the basis of a relativistically rotating platter, the value of Pi is a variable too, dependent on the RPM. But like good scientists, we can "save appearances" by defining Pi as the ratio you get at zero RPM. Or we can simply abandon the Euclidean delusion that math describes physical reality, rather than just being a useful calculus for engineers to get real work done ;-)
On the basis of semantics, then Creation science is science. Though that isn't my semantics.
Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2015, 02:21:38 PM
Correct math, is a tautology. Contingent math, is physical science. Contradictory math, is economics ;-)
The tautology I was referring to was: laws = recurrent patterns = that (which) haven't been contradicted by experiment yet.
Sorry to disappoint but there is no correct math, nor contigent math, and neither contradictory math. There is only math, a creative endeavor of the human mind.
QuoteI don't believe you or anyone else has solved the problem of logical induction (mathematical induction on a monotonically and uniformly increasing number series ... doesn't count). The first black swan to come along, blows the whole group delusion.
Mathematical induction is just another tool in the kit. It has its limitations. Can you live with that?
QuoteYes, there are lots of hard to explain things. But don't worry, I am working on it ;-)
But you get no medal from me, ;-)
QuoteWell then, on the basis of a relativistically rotating platter, the value of Pi is a variable too, dependent on the RPM. But like good scientists, we can "save appearances" by defining Pi as the ratio you get at zero RPM. Or we can simply abandon the Euclidean delusion that math describes physical reality, rather than just being a useful calculus for engineers to get real work done ;-)
Pi is constant, it's time and length that can expand/contract. Don't mix your apples with your oranges.
QuoteOn the basis of semantics, then Creation science is science. Though that isn't my semantics.
False equivalence. Whether or not energy/matter is conserved depends on what you consider in the equation. Energy/matter is conserved if you include the energy of the gravitational field along with the energy of matter and radiation. See: http://blog.vixra.org/2010/08/17/energy-is-conserved-in-cosmology/
This is a great post JP. The problem is there are only a dozen people or so on the forum with the knowledge to address it without looking stupid. I'm not one of them. :sad2:
Quote from: stromboli on September 11, 2015, 11:55:56 AM
This is a great post JP. The problem is there are only a dozen people or so on the forum with the knowledge to address it without looking stupid. I'm not one of them. :sad2:
There are only good questions, including the "stoooopid" ones.
I can count to potato.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on September 11, 2015, 12:04:47 PM
There are only good questions, including the "stoooopid" ones.
This is stunningly true on so many levels.
Jonb - except that most lay people, and more than a few scientists, think that the focus should be on the "temporary" answers they come up with, not with the profound questions that have been shaken out of the intellectual woodwork.
When have you come up with a "profound" question?
Mighty catty of you ... I think I might have felt a little scratch ;-) Meow!
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2015, 08:03:39 PM
Jonb - except that most lay people, and more than a few scientists, think that the focus should be on the "temporary" answers they come up with, not with the profound questions that have been shaken out of the intellectual woodwork.
Most of the times, there are only temporary answers. There are few moments in history that witnessed major breakthroughs; Gauss who realized that space could be curved, Einstein that time was not absolute, to name two of those instances. But these are rare moments. For most folks, including myself, we struggle with the (temporary)answers we have at hand.
Good thing huh? If you had to get a Nobel to get tenure ... there wouldn't be many. As it is, tenure seems endangered ... since the people paying for college, businesses and parents, want to subordinate education to political-economic realities. Though I can admire that tenure hasn't been completely killed, and that true education hasn't been completely commercialized and consumerized. Also if only 1 in 10 college management teams are any good (see Coopers Union) then it is a wonder they haven't all closed their doors.
Spoiler alert ... I went to college for careerism, not for an education. I got an education subsequently by wide book reading. My experience with pedagogy is that face to face teaching is still necessary ... that the on-line experience will only meet the needs of the many who can't afford college, but deprive those who can afford college of a real education. Also it is true that the motivation of students is weak at best. They by the nature of their youth, don't know what they want, and if they do know what they want, don't know why.
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2015, 06:23:38 AM
Good thing huh? If you had to get a Nobel to get tenure ... there wouldn't be many. As it is, tenure seems endangered ... since the people paying for college, businesses and parents, want to subordinate education to political-economic realities. Though I can admire that tenure hasn't been completely killed, and that true education hasn't been completely commercialized and consumerized. Also if only 1 in 10 college management teams are any good (see Coopers Union) then it is a wonder they haven't all closed their doors.
Tenure, hmm...I don't know what that has to do with this thread, but anyway, since I'm one of those who did benefit from tenure, let me answer this one. Tenure allowed me to be free from any political retaliation that would have resulted from office politics. I didn't have to cater to my head department, and I didn't have to brownnose the dean of faculty, and so on. Those who were in the actual position to judge me were my students. The fact that I'm using my real name on this forum should give you an idea that I don't shy away from criticism or personal risk. I run a blog that any of my students could tear apart if I were so inept or less than competent in my field. Sure there are rotten apples in academia, but you'll find them in every profession. Anyway, before tenure, you have a 5-year trial period, long enough for any administration to get rid of some of the rotten apples, and sure, some will escape that, but no structure is always perfect.
QuoteSpoiler alert ... I went to college for careerism, not for an education. I got an education subsequently by wide book reading. My experience with pedagogy is that face to face teaching is still necessary ... that the on-line experience will only meet the needs of the many who can't afford college, but deprive those who can afford college of a real education. Also it is true that the motivation of students is weak at best. They by the nature of their youth, don't know what they want, and if they do know what they want, don't know why.
Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a self-made education - in fact it should be an ongoing process for everyone of us with or without a formal education. It's unfortunate that you seem to have had a negative encounter with the educational system. Sure, it's a plus if you have parent/guardians who serve as exemplary models, or a school system that is topnotch, but those are accidentals. Bill Gates started his fortune from a garage, so formal education or not, the bottom line is that you are responsible for yourself.
My views of academia came much later than school. When I was in school, I did go to a top notch college, and it proved it by being very hard. Partly because of the subject matter, party because of the poor teaching, partly because of my poor student qualities. My subsequent view is that 18 is too young for most to go to college, maybe 25 would be better. The Vietnam War vets I competed against, were awesome, but the price of their maturity was too high.
josephpalazzo, I have a different question.
Probably, they are all different and various. But how long does it take to evaluate a result of an experiment made in the collider in average? I understand this may come silly, but I am just trying to get a frame on a different aspect for myself.
I have read Lederman's book looong time ago and one of the things he said about research in this field that srtuck me then was that it would take a decade to evaluate the results of some of them?
I'm guessing it must be different than what it was 15 years ago?
Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2015, 07:10:14 AM
My views of academia came much later than school. When I was in school, I did go to a top notch college, and it proved it by being very hard. Partly because of the subject matter, party because of the poor teaching, partly because of my poor student qualities. My subsequent view is that 18 is too young for most to go to college, maybe 25 would be better. The Vietnam War vets I competed against, were awesome, but the price of their maturity was too high.
You can get arguments that 18 is too old. The suitable age for college entrance can vary wildly from one individual to another. I don't think we can ever set a universal threshold age. I think if you persist and don't shy away from the struggle, you will flourish, one way or another
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 12, 2015, 07:42:27 AM
josephpalazzo, I have a different question.
Probably, they are all different and various. But how long does it take to evaluate a result of an experiment made in the collider in average? I understand this may come silly, but I am just trying to get a frame on a different aspect for myself.
I have read Lederman's book looong time ago and one of the things he said about research in this field that srtuck me then was that it would take a decade to evaluate the results of some of them?
I'm guessing it must be different than what it was 15 years ago?
That's difficult to assess. Take the LHC, which is basically divided into two teams, each one performing a different experiment - you need that to have more than one team to confirm any new discovery. Now each team comprises about 3000 physicists, technicians and so one. You need to consider that what they study is like firing a bullet against a plate of steel, and then examining the millions of shrapnel bits from this collision. In the case of the LHC, we're looking at literally hundreds of millions of tracks, and then diligently plotting to see if they get some sort of resonance. And then the various teams must come up with enough data to get a 5-sigma signal, meaning there is less than 1 in 3.5 million chances that the resonance is a fluke. In the OP article, three teams are involved, besides the LHC, there's a Japanese and an American team. This brings another hurdle as they are not only apart geographically, but there are different funding difficulties. So how long will it take for these three teams to get confirmation is anyone's guess at this point. However, a 3.5 signal is not to be in anyway dismissed. I believe they will get to the bottom of this sooner or later.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on September 11, 2015, 12:04:47 PM
There are only good questions, including the "stoooopid" ones.
There are loads of reasons why I like this, in that the asking of questions is to me all important, and why I think asking questions should be encouraged in every endeavour. Especially those questions that others will think of as stupid. For me if a person can be open enough to ask questions and also be prepared for everyone to tell them their questions are stupid but carry on learning from the answers and still ask the questions that person is about as brilliant as a person can get.
Daft can often be a signal of Brilliance!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%82_%22%D0%98%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F_%D0%9C%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%86%22.jpg)
This is an Iconic image for me. It is a Russian aeroplane and you can see in the photo two men standing on the fuselage, the madness is that this is not stuntmen showing off, but that they are normal passengers walking about on the promenade deck. Yes this plane was designed with a promenade deck so that passengers could get out of their seats and stretch their legs with a bit of a walk about, and to keep them safe there is one thin rope going round the edge of the deck about eighteen inches high. These are Russians who are known to have the odd drink and be less steady on their feet! Can there be anything more stupid than that aeroplane?
The Sikorsky Ilya Muromets is a class of Russian pre-World War I large four-engine commercial airliners and heavy military bombers used during World War I by the Russian Empire. The series was based on the Russky Vityaz or Le Grand, the world's first four-engined aircraft, designed by Igor Sikorsky. The Ilya Muromets aircraft as it appeared in 1913 was a revolutionary design, intended for commercial service with its spacious fuselage incorporating a passenger saloon and washroom on board.
During World War I, it became the first four-engine bomber to equip a dedicated strategic bombing unit. This heavy bomber was unrivaled in the early stages of the war, as the Central Powers had no aircraft capable enough to rival it until much later.
In 1916-17 the German Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI, the only example of any of the Imperial German Riesenflugzeug airframe designs to be produced in any quantity during World War I was essentially a copy of this aircraft.
Which means that the aircraft designed in 1912 by Igor Sikorsky was still a front line aircraft at the end of the first world war no other aircraft was that far ahead of its time, that in time where aircraft development was so rapid that ground breaking aircraft could often become old fashioned and obsolete in a matter of months the Ilya Muromets lasted the whole war and beyond.
The first four engined Airliner
the first aeroplane with a pressurised cabin for flying at great hight.
Yes the promenade deck was probably with hindsight stupid, but it is also a testament to Igor Sikorsky's brilliance and willingness to try out new ideas.
The stupid question
If we were to boil down everything Socrates said a very good way to say it I think is 'a willingness to ask stupid questions even if that get you into trouble'.
With children from deprived backgrounds I have found the biggest problem to their learning is an unwillingness to look stupid in front of their peers which might send them even further down a pecking order, so they don't ask questions that others could use against them.
And in creativity every idea is stupid until it can be shown to be right, and for a progressive society we have a need for more ideas.
@jonb
Thanks for the post.
Indeed, people shy from the stupid questions often from fear of tripping themselves over and being ridicule, yet Charlie Chaplin made his career of tripping all over himself.